On Optimality, Success and Proof of Concept

[Sturen]

ETC was just an example because it is seen as a high standard international tournament: I don't play ETC, nor do I agree with their restrictions.

ETC = European Team Championship I think. Each country in Europe can submit their four best players to play in the tournament. Often seen as the highest level of WH in Europe at least; and also considered one of the most strict major comps out there.

[Prince of Spires]

The problem is of course that fun is different for everyone and therefore hard to define and base rules on.

I consider it very unfun to play against a complete gunline where I simply remove half my army before they even got to move. Then again, there are people who create those armies and play with them a lot. I guess they do so because they do think it is fun.

There are some people who think it is very unfun to play with non-fluffy lists (think Tiralya or whatever his name is at the moment ). There are people who think it is unfun to play with the hardest list possible, but who like building flexible lists without any fluff at all. And then there are people who think it is unfun to play with anything except the hardest list possible and would have absolutely no fun steamrolling fluff lists.

This makes "fun" a difficult and very silly basis to base a comp rule set on. The aim (at least the aim always claimed) is to level the playing field. Fun has very little to do with it.

Rod

[SpellArcher]

Maybe someone could find a way of quantifying the 'fun factor'?



I think Keith has a similar attitude to one of our top players, Russ Veal. Although he builds hard lists he also tries to make them not totally depressing to play against.

Also, consider SCGT comp (pretty light) for example. The stated aim of this is not so much to level the playing field but to stop certain match-ups being total non-events.

[Keith]

I typically do try to do that. But my main army (skaven) sometimes makes it hard to do. Mainly because if all of my "skaven tricks" work, I feel like a bad person.

Typically I run this.

Grey seer, 5+ ward, power scroll.
Warlord, war litter, sword of anti-heros, HA, dragonhelm, 4+ ward, other trickster's shard.

Engineer, doom rocket
Engineer, lvl 1, Dispell scroll
Engineer, brass orb (This is mainly to help against ogres)
BSB, GW, AOSS, dragonbane gem.
Assassin, Potion of STR, weeping blades

2x35 clan rats, sheilds, FC,
1 doom flayer, 1 ratling gun
4x20 slaves
2x rat dart.
6-7 gutter runners, poison, slings
6 Plague censer bearers.
2xWLC
HPA with spikes
Doomwheel.

The biggest issue I have with it is that 1 WLC is not reliable enough, but 2 can sometime be too much. I had one game against a BRett player where in one turn I killed like 15 knights (7 grail, 8 kotr) in one turn with my cannons (this was also turn one) So the game was basically over.

[SpellArcher]

It's a hard list but at least it's got some variety. Swap out that cannon and it would get past SCGT comp. How do the MMU slaves work? What are the most difficult match-ups for it?

[Keith]

I tend to find that more small units of slaves works better because they are typically more predictable.

I would rather you charge, kill them and reform or overrun(at a poor angle), so I can then block you again. I find the bigger units often break on MY turn which can lose me the game. As long as they are a rerollable 9-10 for a possible terror checks, I am good.

I don't think it has any really bad matchups. Better armies are more of a struggle. Ogres, specifically, because even basic ogre units can beat most of mine, (and I can't hit them with Dreaded). Demons are typically a big win for one of us. Either I smash him with enough of my spells/shooting early, or his main blocks eventually get to important things, also, HPA isn't really great against Demons. DE are often a tricky game, but close. Every once in a while O&G can give me problems.